Introduction to Objectivism, by Leonard Peikoff

[@theidiotphilosopher2991]

I tried to read Atlas Shrugged and quit less than 100 pages in. Same for Introduction To Objectivism. Years later I read Philosophy: Who Needs It? and it changed my understanding of life and existence by exposing my own ignorance to myself. When I finally returned to Atlas Shrugged I felt overwhelmed by it's beauty and simplicity. Ms. Rand's existence was validated by the example she set and I am eternally grateful for what she chose to share. To this day it brings a tear to my eye when I think of the personal potential I have become in touch with thanks to the exposure to her work.

[@izi.z2384]

Thoughtful post.. I'm wondering how I've never come across Any Rand philosophies throughout my college education, working years and independent studies up until now. Seems it would have been beneficial.

[@FerreusDeus]

@@izi.z2384 When were you in college? Because critical theory has been infecting colleges with its fascist sentiments since the 70s. There was push back in the 80s and 90s, and now it's rearing its ugly head again with all this talk of racism and anti-capitalism

[@Toorek100]

​@@izi.z2384You didn't hear about her, because her philosophy is not benefitial for the establishment.

[@TheMightyWalk]

Yes

[@TheMightyWalk]

@@izi.z2384because it’s the Neo liberal order

[@Save_America24]

My life has improved drastically with objectivism. Ayn Rand is an amazing philosopher

[@denismijatovic1239]

Yes

[@satoshinakamoto7253]

It is. Life is objective, with evolutionary psychology. That's it

[@filosofiadevida7820]

objectivism is the most human way to the men live , is just human being a human .

[@Floatacious]

I found this when I was 20, what's everyone else's excuse?

[@tomservo75]

In what ways, can you give examples? Just curious.

[@1931JC]

Ayn gave me my life's blood. Her philosophy gives joy.

[@izi.z2384]

Nicely said.. I'm wondering how I've never come across Any Rand philosophies throughout my college education, working years and independent studies up until now. Seems it would have been beneficial.

[@johnnynick6179]

@@izi.z2384 People who earn their living working for the government, or subsidized by the government, do not find it in their interest to promote a philosophy that says the government should not be subsidizing education.

[@letterfake8319]

I was drawn to objectivism because it was based on the fundamental laws of Nature. The basic truth of life and man’s responsibility to himself.

[@hyperreal]

I would say to your point that its based on nature, its really the ability to derive morality from objective reality.

[@AbsbsjdbZhahebsjs]

Funny, because "individual responsibility" comes from religion. The greeks didnt have this until aristole, and the chinese blamed the whole family as a source of morality(if youre bad is because they thought you to be bad) ​@hyperreal

[@mughat]

Thank you. This was my personal introduction to Objectivism about 4 year ago. Now I would call myself an Objectivist.

[@bigdilf314]

@@user-yo6um3jn5k why is it silly?

[@readtherealanthonyfaucibyr6444]

@@user-yo6um3jn5k Most philosophy departments likely teach the same new age marxist subjective reality garbage that is the opposite of objectivism.

[@TyyylerDurden]

@@user-yo6um3jn5k who cares about your corrupted philosophy departments?! You must use your own reason, not having idols and authorities without any rational analysis of their possible garbage.

[@galinakondratenko5400]

He confuse mind with consioussness. Mind is not consioussness. Consioussness beyond mind. But if you reject it you can't have access to it, to suoerconsioussness

[@Annc212]

this is fabulous! so glad it's on KZbin! If you are familiar with Ayn Rand 's Objectivism make sure you listen to how Leonard Peikoff handles the Questions at end! Brilliant! Masterful example of how deal with basic questions.

[@irlshrek]

+Ann Ciccolella I was enthralled with the lecture and I didnt think the question part would be as good as it was, because I enjoyed that part even more!

[@izi.z2384]

I'm wondering how I've never come across Any Rand philosophies throughout my college education, working years and independent studies up until now. Seems it would have been beneficial.

[@MrRemorseless]

@@izi.z2384 yes. 5 years in college I never heard nor saw Rand nor Objectivism mentioned anywhere. Tbh I think it might never change, if professors insist on government funding

[@socksumi]

Just a phenomenal teacher. The very best.

[@irlshrek]

this was some powerful stuff..

[@Reidsmith1000]

Great introduction to Objectivism and a beautifully produced video.

[@adeelali8417]

He is so intense. Although I don't agree with all his views, I love his delivery.

[@bobpeckham7637]

You are to be strapped -down and made to listen to him! Punishment for NOT obeying me ? Sentenced to listen to Joe Biden for five hours!

[@DrEnginerd1]

Beautiful

[@goldsackb2]

My wife overheard me listening to this and said “why are you listening to Tom Hanks scream at people?”

[@rogercarroll2551]

And that is relevant to exactly what ?

[@ABCDuwachui]

@@robertruge2916 rip

[@laurahale9309]

I heard Tom Hanks voice too.

[@tragickingdom15]

My boyfriend said Norm McDonald.

[@ctsirkass]

@@tragickingdom15 LOL, Tom Hank's voice matched when I read the comment, but Norm McDonald made me laugh of how true it is. They are identical at times! 😆

[@Iamjamessmith1]

Consider Socrates was first and said, in essence, "Let's examine our lives to bring value." Plato was next, like a child of the one who questions and said, in essence, "Life is hard to understand, I can't see clearly. I am like a man seeing shadows on the wall and not reality." Then the questioner and the answerer became mature in the next philospher, Aristotle. "The world is real and we can know it. Go and learn to create value toward life and happiness." These are philosphers 1,Socrates, 2 Plato and 3 Aristotle.

[@Iamjamessmith1]

It is helpful to use a word like "reciprocation" beside "trade" when speaking of value for value. In this way, the thinking individual is clearly connected to others in the full gamut of ways. Otherwise, the relationship existing between "value for value" individuals is easily lost. Those unable to provide any value whatsoever continue to live only at the mercy of others. Facts of life and love.

[@damonhage7451]

Why is it better to use the word reciprocation? I don't understand what is the distinction you are making.

[@josephquadri7423]

*If I correctlyunderstand the point he is making here* "Reciprocation" should be used as it always conveys that there is a mutual benefit (value for value). Where as trade, particularly in some modern interpretations of how capitalism works, people infer it as a zero sum interaction. Hopefully that makes sense

[@patrickmccarron5059]

"Not all capitalism is free, but all free societies must have capitalism." - paraphrase Milton Friedman.

[@ominousparallel3854]

The real quote is ‘Capitalism is a ne essaye, but not sufficient, condition to freedom’. But note Objectivist disagree. Capitalism without freedom is a contradiction in terms.

[@dewilderdbetter]

One of the greatest privileges of my life was to have known Ayn Rand personally in San Francisco in the Sixties. Her intensity reminded me of a laser.

[@tomservo75]

This looks like it was done quite some years back, maybe early-mid 90s. Where do you find students and classes like that today?

[@GlenfinnanForge]

Well, it's all pretty much justification for socialism and intersectional "justice" these day, so probably not many places.

[@lawrencelord9777]

@@GlenfinnanForge LMAO CORRECT and its fucking terrifying. jesus how i cant wait for the counter to that culture to be more prominent.

[@theindividual8026]

A captivating introduction.

[@Floatacious]

I need to show this to the world

[@Shozb0t]

46:10 The comedian Bill Hicks had a funny bit about this topic. He said that people who take LSD and then try to fly from the roof of a building are assholes. Bill suggested that they should try flying from the ground first. Give it a little test.

[@kenzeier2943]

Like testing one’s philosophy...?

[@superdeluxesmell]

Linda Belcher sure is a woman of many talents.

[@melissahernandezm379]

Every time he takes a drink it makes me feel like my throat is dry and that I need a drink! Stop! Lmao Great lecture by the way.

[@limitless1692]

It was a great lecture . I love it. Thank You.

[@joachimw5940]

Thanks!

[@the3wraithwarriors]

In an Objective society, would the people have to form a new organization to maintain infrastructure and if so, how would this organization be funded to maintain public structures without taxes? Would every structure have to be privately owned?

[@mughat]

All infrastructure would be private. You would pay for the service you need like you pay for anything. You can build roads for profit or you can go together as a community to build roads to attract people to your area or business. There is always incentives to build roads if that is the best option for your area.

[@sweetpeabrown261]

@jeff jones Well said!

[@stephenhogg6154]

Skepticism isn’t relativism. There’s a big difference.

[@vspec17]

The woman with the short black hair sitting next to the guy who asked the first question was smokin hot. There’s my scholarly critique.

[@MLouah-gp9ef]

Nicholas Campbell at least you’re being objective

[@boilerhousegarage]

I preferred the one in the blue top sat next to the Asian girl. She has got a girl next door look about her. She'll be about my age too, given this video is 24 years old.

[@joyfulsavage9905]

😂 🥵🌶🌶

[@izi.z2384]

@@boilerhousegarage 24 years old.. wow. I wish I heard of Any Rand back then.

[@KungFuHonky]

How do you objectively and through logical epistemology, deduce animals are "programmed" while man has "free will?" The arrival at this conclusion is an act of faith Mr. Peikoff has made. And he has made it contrary to the rules of his own philosophy.

[@boilerhousegarage]

As it's a fact that animals are driven by instinct, not rational thought. This is a conclusion of logical deduction; it would only be an act of faith if you were told to accept this fact without use of your own concept formation and thought processes, which you are free to do now to present a different hypotheses regarding man's volition and animal instinct.

[@KungFuHonky]

@@boilerhousegarage So tell me how you logically deduce that man has free will and is neither instinctual nor irrational.

[@boilerhousegarage]

No, that's a loaded question. Man can be both instinctual and irrational because he has free will. Man can also choose to be polite or not, when asking a question.

[@KungFuHonky]

@@boilerhousegarage How do you know you actually make the choice in any way that differs from the way other animals do or don't make choices? It seems you're assuming free will and that it's uniquely inherent to man. I'm saying, show me how this is can logically be arrived at minus faith.

[@boilerhousegarage]

Sure, I'll get straight to work on that! A complete psychological analysis that compares man's advanced volitional mind, with the primative sentience and instinct-driven animal mind, to show how one has the mental capacity to rationally think to choose multiple actions and the other does not--at least to the extent you could call it "free will." I'll have the write up on your desk by the morning! 🙄

[@jesusrodriguezrobles2204]

Thank you. Dr leonard peikoff

[@peterhuber1702]

I truly wish Mr. Peikoff would soften his lecture style, it's so distracting from delivering the information and the lessons he's trying to teach. Being loud and direct is great for making certain points, but having the volume and intensity at a 10 the entire time is just tiring for the audience. Does he feel like his students in this group will fall asleep on him if he isn't in their faces the whole time? The Q&A session is handled poorly too, cutting off a questioner before they've had a chance to fully ask a question is not only rude but it hampers your ability to correctly answer the question.

[@kenzeier2943]

Maybe there was a fan blowing in the ceiling or some thing that he was hearing and he had to speak or thought that he had to speak loudly

[@Pimping9167]

I have no problem with his lectures Perhaps you could lower the volume on your device and take breaks as well 😂

[@peterhuber1702]

@@Pimping9167 No, I'm not the problem and don't need to adjust, thank you. If you don't mind, great, but no one I've ever heard other than street preachers speak like this and wanted to comment. I'm entitled to my own opinion.

[@HaukurIceland]

Good lesson

[@elianaposada]

Great talk!

[@stephenhogg6154]

My table is my work board, is my shelf, is my storage space, is my chopping board, is my bed ... It is what it is.

[@hoosierdaddy2308]

Anthem is still one of my favs.

[@Richard-1776]

I love this lecture.

[@ABCDuwachui]

I love you.

[@DeterministicOne]

"Human beings are absolutely subject to cause and effect, but. . ." By definition "absolutely" leaves no room for "but". The self is a product of a bio-mechanical process, cut and dried, three truckloads.

[@dougpridgen9682]

You are correct technically speaking. If he had put his communication in writing I doubt he would have used "but." A sapient organism has the option to classify what is given in sense perception by differentiation, integration, and measurement omission (among things that are commensurable) by a process of abstraction or conceptualization. Unlike our respiratory or other automated systems, this process is volitional and requires deliberation. This is a specific instance of causality that differs in important ways from, say, one billiard ball striking a second billiard ball, or winning the lottery. The comment you just posted, for example, didn't write and post itself. So the "but" was not intended as an exception to what is absolute. It was intended as an elaboration and clarification that what a thing can cause is determined by its characteristics and (if applicable) its abilities. I don't think he said anywhere that the "self" is anything other than a bio-mechanical process. Further is the "self" equivalent to reason? There are automated/non-volitional processes of consciousness, such as sense-perception, and subconscious processes that serve as an object of study for psychiatrists and psychologists. One element of reason, sense-perception, is an automated process. The other two, conceptualization and logic, are volitional. These distinct instances of causality are not equivalent.

[@DeterministicOne]

Doug Pridgen "this process is volitional and requires deliberation." This process is is all done by the brain, we merely experience the process first hand. " I don't think he said anywhere that the "self" is anything other than a bio-mechanical process. " When you speak of volition, you are saying that you are in control. You are not. The bio-mechanical process is doing it all. We cause nothing, we are an effect.

[@dougpridgen9682]

You are conflating sense perception with conceptual thinking. Do the comments you post write themselves via an automated process that you just experience firsthand? I suppose these computers and the internet we are communicating through are the result of automated processes? Of course the process doesn't occur apart from a brain. I'm don't believe in a soul. But it is not automatic like your breathing.

[@DeterministicOne]

Doug Pridgen I am not conflating the two, but I am saying they have the same source, i.e., the brain. The comments I post do not write themselves, but the thoughts preceding them are created automatically by the brain in my skull. If you could explain in simple terms how "you" create a thought, it would go a long way to changing my mind.

[@TMMx]

That's an objectively hideous mullet.

[@JohnSandwich]

+TMM "In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson

[@MiracleWitness]

+TMM : I thought, a lady named Leonard, with such an old-fashioned hair style...

[@yllekfrizco4557]

+TMM Frivolous and irrelevant. Did you come here to grace us all with your expertise as a hair dresser or to engage with the topic of philosophy?

[@tam7280]

Lou Reed's brother took a different walk on the wild side.

[@mauriceneville860]

why are Objectivists so pompous ?

[@do123go]

This course has also been published with subtitles in Spanish -- Este curso también ha sido publicado con subtítulos en español -- kzbin.info/www/bejne/b5nWc4ltqMZ5nZY

[@LuIsSaNcHeZ510]

Interesting. An embryo is not an individual. Where does an objectivist draw the line for what is an individual human life? Birth? What’s the difference between a 7 month old fetus and a 2 month old baby? Neither has the ability to reason. I ask this as someone who believes Ayn Rand is just right. But I just think there seem to be some small gaps in objectivism.

[@heldercardoso8215]

Thank you

[@bretnetherton9273]

Awareness is the ONLY constant of ALL experience what could be more fundamental to reality than that?

[@science212]

The best philosophy class.

[@tykepope]

Was the ending where he dropped the Buddhism and collected his bonus?

[@Nitrotix1]

Fantastic!

[@LM-dd9fe]

Well the audience seems pretty smart too

[@christophersnedeker]

My question is if objectivism is true why preach it? Isn't that practicing altruism? Going out of your way to help a stranger by preaching egoism?

[@kurokamei]

How is that altruism? Altruism meaning is not not interacting with others or helping them. Altruism, which is the literal meaning is other-ism, means putting others before yourself. Other people's life takes priority above your own. Its antagonist is egoism.

[@nikolovtod]

I wonder what is "free will" if the natural world is the only objective reality? How can non-determined consciousness exist in the Ayn Rand universe?

[@damonhage7451]

+Todor Nikolov I realize this is an old thread but from my understanding, when objectivists use the phrase "free will" they aren't talking about determinism or "do I raise my hand or not raise my hand" type scenarios. "Free will" to an objectivist means you have the capacity to choose to think (pursue things that rationally improve your life) or not to think (pursue things that rationally harm your life or pursue nothing).

[@kyleserrecchia5300]

Why can't it?

[@damonhage7451]

+Todor Nikolov I have learned a little more on the subject since I made this last comment and I think there is another point that should be brought up here. Part of this confusion comes from a equivocation of causality with mechanism. The law of causality is a corollary of the law of identity. It is formulated as "every entity acts in accordance with its nature". That says nothing about what particular types of entities can exist, only that if they exist THEN they must act according to their nature, and everything has a nature because of the law of identity. Given that, there is no "law" of reality that states that there cannot be an entity that can act this way or that way on a non-determined basis, since the law of causality doesn't prescribe what kinds of entities can exist. This doesn't resolve whether there is a special kind of entity in man that allows for this capability, or whether it is an emergent property of a particular type of consciousness, but that is irrelevant from the perspective of it existing. You don't need to know how it exists to know that it exists.

[@damonhage7451]

Another way to put it is that man's nature is such that he has free will. Given that is his nature, he can act according to his nature, of which the action in question is choosing.

[@sweetpeabrown261]

I agree with you. You may enjoy Sam Harris' short book "Free Will". It shed a great deal of light on this subject.

[@ctsirkass]

That was so simple, yet revolutionary and so revealing of the stories we have been told in order to not question government intervention that I wonder how they have not canceled Rand, Peikoff & objectivism already!

[@someonenotnoone]

Objectivism cancels itself. Many people who study history, science, and logic before encountering Rand aren't persuaded by it.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

This guy gives Richard Wolf a run for his money.

[@SK-le1gm]

Thanks

[@blueseaswhiteskies]

«Aristotle. I thought everybody in this room knew nothing, but that's correct» damn-it! He didn't hold back lmao

[@KungFuHonky]

If you want to understand how Nazi Germany came to pass, read Leonard Peikoff's book: The Cause of Hitler's Germany.

[@andrewlane7000]

What was Ayn Rand's opinion on Actuality ???

[@haydenwilsonx]

47:15 - his chapter on honesty. Is this from “objectivism: the philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff” or from another of his books?

[@damonhage7451]

Yes. The students in this lecture were all given OPAR. Very good chapter.

[@haydenwilsonx]

@@damonhage7451 yep - I forgot I ordered it in physical and I showed up the next day - very interesting thoughts. For anyone watching, it’s chapter 8: virtue

[@Claudio-gt4tn]

20:10 Against subjectivism: the truth lies in a proper relation between your mind and reality

[@YamiAi]

Yes, objectivism is a denial of subjectivism.

[@FerreusDeus]

@@YamiAi No it isn't. He never said that subjective perception doesn't exist. He actually acknowledged it in the video.

[@YamiAi]

@@FerreusDeus thanks for the necrobump mate.

[@hfhfu5711]

6:41 best cue to walk out.

[@bretnetherton9273]

If existence exist as something what is that something, and if existence exist as all things what knows all things?

[@loser1234b]

Reason seems to go against quantam mechanics since A is both A and not A simultaneously

[@damonhage7451]

The interpretations of QM that hold that stance are wrong.

[@AbtinForouzandeh]

How do you propose to understand anything at all, let alone quantum mechanics, if you claim reason is invalid?

[@ignaciocabero2318]

We the living, anthem, the fountainhead, atlas shrugged.

[@Deleuzeshammerflow]

Would someone please help me understand what the speaker is referring to in the beginning regarding mystical doctrines taught be the USSR?

[@mughat]

+Deleuzeshammerflow : Dialectical materialism aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/mystics_of_spirit_and_of_muscle.html

[@Deleuzeshammerflow]

thanks

[@dwwolf4636]

The whole basis of socialism/communism ( pre 1945 there was not much distinction ) is that the true Human nature is that Man is only knowable as a Species Being. I.e. as part of Collective hive mind and that the individual *must* sacrifice himself for the collective as that is his only real value. I.e. Forced Altruism. Furthermore it postulates that private property i.e. the exclusion of others from some (material) goods is what drives man to alienate himself from himself ( as the Species Being ). Socialism/communism is both a Hatred of the Self and objective reality.

[@ken4975]

I wonder if Ayn Rand would have changed her ethics in light of new research in physics and neuroscience which tend to suggest we have no free will?

[@razzberry6180]

Thats not entirely true at all. Theres reason to believe that consciousness itself might not even originate in the brain, but might be a natural phenomenon of the universe itself, in its own field.

[@ken4975]

@@razzberry6180 Yes, the jury is out isn't it? But I would say it is entirely true that there are respected scientists out there (among others) who hold this view.

[@damonhage7451]

No she wouldn't have. The scientists who claim people don't have free will, didn't reach that conclusion because of any scientific evidence. They claim that because it conflicts with their philosophical positions. Namely, mechanistic materialism, which says everything in the universe operates like billiard balls on a table. There is no way to logically infer that premise, but they all take it as an axiom.

[@ken4975]

@@damonhage7451 Yes, undoubtedly scientists, just like anyone else, might be persuaded by philosophical conflicts . Others explain it as logic based laws of physics. It's all up for grabs and depends how you interpret things. Are we saying Ms Rand would not reconsider in light of all the things we know now that we did not know then? From what little I know of her, she comes across as very smart.

[@damonhage7451]

@@ken4975 The issue that what people mean by the "laws of physics" are influenced by their philosophy. I like I said before, most scientists accept mechanistic materialism and nobody has ever presented a valid argument for it to my knowledge. Would Rand reconsider free will? Absolutely not. Nothing has been learned. Like I said before, there hasn't been any argument for mechanistic materialism presented in the last 40 years that isn't as flawed as the arguments made by the determinists in ancient Greece.

[@jamesmeritt6800]

Am I incorrect in concluding that Objectivism is intensely Aristotelian, Newtonian, Euclidian. And very NOT QM.

[@FranciscodAnconia-GG-Recruiter]

Okay Mr.JamesMerrit, I'll bite you on this one ... You'll find your answer if you project theory into practice. All of those men of history that you mention proposed theories that you have to analyse for yourself prior to putting into practice. QM is a theory, a lot of the theories put forward these days are based of statistics to get a desired result. Be careful, the majority of 'scientists' ... no, people out there have an evil-mystic agenda. Objectivism defines what is factually good for man - Miss Rand designed it as a sort of filter for anyone that seeks the truth. ... now go forth into the world young man and multiply - but filter first. Francisco Carlos Domingo Andres Sebastién d'Anconia

[@CScott-wh5yk]

The law of identity does not preclude the existence of a God that then manifests the reality we inhabit. The argument given here is circular: our experience of existence is material, therefore only the material exists because of the law of identity, but we only know the identity of existence is material because we defined it as such by assuming what we experience (the material) is the whole show. To apply the law of identity in this way, you must assume the mind is capable of grasping every aspect of an object in order to identify it correctly and completely. If the mind cannot do this, then we cannot assume our perception of an object's identity is equal to the totality of its true metaphysical identity. We have no reason to assume the mind is capable of perceiving an object's complete identity, therefore, we cannot apply the law of identity in the way given in this lecture and Peikoff's book on Objectivism.

[@damonhage7451]

It most certainly does. If a god is the reason things are the way they are, then he can make them not the way they are, and therefore the law of identity would be invalid. "our experience of existence is material" Objectivism doesn't subscribe to materialism. Not sure which philosophy you are arguing against but it isn't Objectivism here. "To apply the law of identity in this way, you must assume the mind is capable of grasping every aspect of an object in order to identify it correctly and completely." No, you don't need to assume that. Let's say that I see the Earth from a long distance away. Do I need to know that you ate a hamburger for lunch in your kitchen to say "there is a planet there"? Do I need to know that the atoms in a leaf vibrate in such a way as to release green light to know that the leaf is green? If I didn't know about atoms, could I still tell the leaf was green? If I put the leaf up so that it covers my whole vision, so I can't see its shape, does that mean I can't tell that it is green? I don't see the shape and therefore I can't determine it is green? Basically, your premise "you must assume the mind is capable of grasping every aspect of an object in order to identify it correctly and completely" is arbitrary.

[@CScott-wh5yk]

Damon Hage you cannot apply the law of identity in the way Objectivism does unless you know the entirety of an object's identity, this is obvious. I cannot claim that aspect a is not identical to Object A unless I know Object A in its entirety and that it does not include aspect a in its identity. This is basic logic.

[@damonhage7451]

@@CScott-wh5yk You can keep saying that, but that doesn't make it true. It is just as arbitrary now when you say it as when you said it the first time. Also, they aren't "applying the law of identity". The law of identity is true because of the facts of reality. The law of causality is true because of the law of identity. They aren't trying to slap the law of identity onto reality, like you would apply an ointment to a wound. That is rationalism and invalid. "I cannot claim that aspect a is not identical to Object A unless I know Object A in its entirety and that it does not include aspect a in its identity." Aspect a is not identical to Object A? This literally makes no sense. Somethings aspects (its characteristics if that is what you mean) cannot be "identical" to an object. That doesn't make sense. That is like saying red is identical to wine. No, wine has the characteristic of being red. There is no "red" without the thing that is red. Is English your primary language? I'm not asking to demean you if it isn't, but you don't seem to know what an aspect is if you think that even hypothetically it can be "identical" to an object.

[@CScott-wh5yk]

Damon Hage just because you say it is arbitrary does not mean you can negate the laws of logic by simply saying it’s so. You must know something in its entirety to be able to make universal claims about its identity. You cannot claim the universe is all there is unless you know all there is, for example. This is obvious. If you want to say this is arbitrary, please explain why rather than just saying so.

[@CScott-wh5yk]

"Reality, it being what it is, is independent of consciousness," Peikoff applies the law of identity in this way at 11:50. But this claim can only be made if we understand reality in its entirety and that it is independent of consciousness. This has not been established, at least not within the philosophy of objectivism (it is just assumed by begging the question and calling it the law of identity).

[@patrickmccarron5059]

I disagree that animals do not have free will. Perhaps they not as advanced as humans, but they do have many traits that are similar to humans, animals can definitely love and be motivated by anger, sadness, happiness, fear, etc.. I have seen evidence of it.

[@ominousparallel3854]

You’re confusing emotions with free will. No one ever said animals do not have emotions. That’s actually pretty much all they have.

[@UserName-ii1ce]

After listening to this man I almost feel like yelling at my neighbors kids for having fun

[@tomjoad9447]

No..your woke friends are the ones doing that because the kids are thinking for themselves

[@Claudio-gt4tn]

is this lecture from the '80s? Or just the guy? :))

[@boilerhousegarage]

1995. Most academics in their 60s are behind the times. In '95 I had long hair like Kid Rock and Axel Rose, I looked totally rad.. ..iculous!

[@AnudeepNallapareddy]

John Galt are u the John Galt from atlas shrugged?? Just wondering

[@xblackcatx1312]

Those kids seem pretty dumb...I don’t think it’s the eighties lol.

[@boilerhousegarage]

@@AnudeepNallapareddy This is John Galt speaking. I am the man who loves his life. I am the man who does not sacrifice his love and his values, and if you want to know why you are perishing--you who dread knowledge--I am the man who will tell you. Actually, my name's Rick, but yes I'm using the character name from Atlas Shrugged.

[@JohnSandwich]

This may sound ignorant, but - who is John Galt?

[@yasserostyn8296]

Good video!

[@filiperocha1465]

Wasn't the Manhattan project a government project?

[@drewjohn6721]

Speak up, peikoff, I can't hear you.

[@sonnyjim5268]

Drew John Good one.

[@galacticambitions1277]

What is the Objectivist basis for the belief in human freewill?

[@keving1376]

You saying there's a shortage of free will in western societies these days? The basis for human reasoning and intelligence to understand the concepts of objectivism though, that i don't think there's basis for.

[@galacticambitions1277]

I don't mean historically or geographically, I mean inherently and metaphysically.

[@keving1376]

I dont know the answer to your question but i dont see how it is relevant, as people obviously have free will but many still arent smart enough to do what's in their best interest. If that's what you're trying to point out here i agree.

[@galacticambitions1277]

How's it obvious people have freewill? Your subjective feeling or observation that human freewill exists could just be an illusion. I think it's important to be able to prove a foundational principle logically or thru observation in order to have a complete and rigorous philosophy. Or else to openly state that despite there being no evidence for freewill, it is asserted as a principle for whatever reasons. Without a treatment of freewill Objectivism is not a complete philosophy.

[@mughat]

@@galacticambitions1277 Free will is self evident and axiomatic. If you don't see it nothing can convince you. You will be stuck in determinism. Safe bet is to live as if free will is true as there is no downside if you are wrong.

[@gdburrito]

Externalities apparently don't exist...? I really don't understand, can someone explain why more or less completely unregulated capitalism is so good? There are certain things a market doesn't account for, like pollution.

[@damonhage7451]

I don't understand your question. Capitalism is so good because human beings produce values by using their minds. Force prevents you from using your mind. A government that simply prevents people from using force on each other, promotes maximum use of the mind, produces maximum value. It's fairly simple. Your example of pollution is a weird one. You are implying that unregulated capitalism is anarchy, when he clearly said that the government exists to prevent infringements of rights. Pollution is clearly a violation of your rights and therefore you wouldn't expect a market to "account for" it. That's the government's job. If I dump my garbage in your back yard, that is an initiation of force and a violation of rights. The government steps in, not some market. You spray me in the face with chlorine. The government steps in, not some market. I hope I didn't fundamentally misunderstand you because I don't think your comment made sense.

[@xenoblad]

I don't know about his view on art. It's seems very limiting to only cover what would or could happen. Basically all fantasy art goes out the window. Overall I like that philosophy for individuals. I'm not sure if it's practical enough to encompass all of politics. He seems to be waaay overselling how great a world run on objectivist principles would be. Charity always being able to reliably deal with the poor, and everyone living to 150 years old sounds too good to be true. I also find it odd that he does not support a competing market place for the military, courts, and police. If the is perverse incentives, then those aren't the only industries that have that problem.

[@damonhage7451]

+xenoblad Sounds like you should do some reading up on free market economics and the inherent problems with central planning. As for the competing military, courts, and police, you cannot have a market in force. Force is the one thing that must be extracted from society to exist. You can't have a market in the one thing that makes markets impossible.

[@malic_zarith]

An example of a necessary regulation in my opinion is the FDA that makes sure there is no rat poison in your food. They may not be perfect, but they prevent a lot of needless death. Edit: I guess his answer that people can't be allowed by government to harm others covers this.

[@WhoIsJohnGaltt]

Why would anybody do that? I don’t know one company that makes money by killing its customers

[@freetrade8830]

FDA regulates medical drugs, not food. Either way, regulatory agencies violate individual rights. Only the individual has the right to decide for himself which standard of safety he wants in drugs or food.

[@malic_zarith]

@@freetrade8830 It does regulate most food. It's literally in the name of the agency. I even looked it up just to make sure.

[@armanmkhitaryan27]

39:27 "Aristotle was much much closer to the objectivist viewpoint." I personally don't think Aristotle would've taken Randian objectivism seriously frankly speaking, and it's quite interesting that Peikoff kind of rushes through it to 'nature,' 'reason' etc. In fact it is well known in the study of ethics and politics that the Ancient Greek philosophic tradition, especially in Plato's and Aristotle's reading, put the common good of the State (city-state back then), collective above the individual's. They're very explicit in doing it and it's not an obscure fact about Greek philosophy so Peikoff should#ve known better. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good#Ancient_Greeks "Aristotle is clear that there is greater value in the common good than in the individual good, noting in his Nicomachean Ethics that "even if the end is the same for a single man and for a state, that of the state seems at all events something greater and more complete; … though it is worthwhile to attain the end merely for one man, it is finer and more godlike to attain it for a nation or for city-states."" Aristotle also mentions multiple times in his Politics that the state should be providing for its poor citizens - food, education, paying for their participation in politics, etc. (and indeed that was the case in Athens with some variations). And last but not least, the idea of the separation of State and economy would've been so foreign to them, it's just worth mentioning that there was no notion of economy separate from State until maybe a 150 years ago. It was always called political economy until relatively recently. Not even close to Ayn Rand.

[@armanmkhitaryan27]

59:49 "All the things which people blame on capitalism are actually not the fault of capitalism but of the element of government that it is mixed with which is corrupting..." The only way this may differ from a Marxist-Leninist scholar back in the USSR days blaming all the faults of the Soviet Union on the state/government/party rather than the ideology as well is that Peikoff can more freely express his ideas. But in essence it seems to be the same to be blind to see any, any pitfalls whatsoever in any particular system of ideas. I'd be afraid of people rejecting any criticism of the ideology of their choice - be it "Soviet communism" or "laissez-faire capitalism".

[@damonhage7451]

Not true. All the Greeks were egoists. They weren’t advocates of the common good through the government.

[@sybo59]

Peikoff was well aware of all of that - he taught a lengthy course on the history of philosophy (available free on the Ayn Rand University app) which explicitly covers the massive differences between Aristotle and Rand. He wasn’t claiming they were identical, but identified the essentials that they shared.

[@sybo59]

@@armanmkhitaryan27 On capitalism: Peikoff is not doing the same hand-wave as the Marxists you describe. He has mountains of evidence on his side, they do not. But you find it sufficient to point out a superficial similarity in the form of their respective claims to justify equating he and they. Absurd - all your work is still ahead of you. For instance, if one student who wrote 2+2=4 on his quiz said “My answer is correct!” would you diminish him on the grounds that another student (who happened to have put 2+2=5) said the same thing? “He’s not right! After all, the guy who said 5 also said he was correct! QED!” Oof. You might find this hard to believe, but the Marxist apologists are wrong, and Peikoff is right. I’m aware that this sort of “absolutism” can make some fragile folks squeamish. But the problems of socialism/communism are direct, causal results of the system; the “problems” of capitalism are either not problems specific to capitalism, or are not caused by capitalism at all. I’m happy to hear some examples. (Please don’t say “monopolies!!!1.” Please.)

[@armanmkhitaryan27]

@@sybo59 Thanks for the reply. I was citing Piekoff himslef, at 39:27 "Aristotle was much much closer to the objectivist viewpoint." Then showed explicitly that Aristotle wasn't close to the "objectivist viewpoint," I think he might've even had a hard time trying to understand the political and economic concepts of what Rand put behind her definition of "objectivism" for the reasons I mentioned in my first comments. You can try to make a good impression in class indeed by drawing such parallels but I don't think it bears any serious philosophical scrutiny. I just find things where I strongly disagree with Piekoff and I try to back my points with specific examples and references, unlike Piekoff on these particular topics in this particular clip. The second point. Systemic issues of capitalism. There's an entire field in the political spectrum dedicated to the study of capitalism basically, the Left. It's not homogenous of course, there's no one Left, but it's done a lot in pointing out and challenging the destructive systemic issues of capitalism. I can understand though that Piekoff and probably some of his followers may dismiss it altogether, but it's just not serous if so. I don't have to turn to people like Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, Shoshana Zuboff, Thomas Piketty and so on to learn about the dangers of capitalist systems, I can just cite my own history: Armenia, where I come from, was completely impoverished and devastated by what some refer to as crony capitalism after the fall of the USSR. I was a kid back then and I don't "miss" it or something, but the "crony (or call it USSR, doesn't matter) socialism" did in many aspects and with many respects a better job in Armenia then the kind of crony capitalism that ensued in the 90s. Both systems are quite vague to begin with on their own without a specific framework in place, both have advantages and both disadvantages. If you need further proof without reading the authors I mentioned above (even though a person approaching these topics seriously has to), just look at Europe and the US actually. There's a tremendous amount of socialist ideas and policies implemented in these areas to hold the system together, because as time has proven, it just collapses under the kind of capitalism that I believe Rand had in mind: no state interference, etc. It's just non-existent. The State is everywhere. There's in fact no example of this Randian picture of capitalism anywhere in the world.

[@MsElke11]

But what if I think McDonald's tastes good and my friend doesn't? Does the Majority win?

[@boilerhousegarage]

No, one of you is correct. And it's not your friend.

[@IridescentEye]

Oh, his take on the government's role on quarantine is a bit dodgy, considering the recent, atrocious, way it used 'pandemic' as a control mechanism. However, I guess this is mitigated by the fact that under Objectivism there would be no central authority to tell you that a disease, that generally was only a threat to the old and compromised, held a real threat to the mass population ..... I imagine, objectively, that an Objectivist government would have prescribed shielding to those groups only .... such as the Barrington declaration was advocating.

[@Supremor-tj9dv]

George Washington also said government is force.

[@9ZenMedia]

I must assume there are some passing nuckas. Though I’ll wait to observe.

[@bretnetherton9273]

Reality is not two, there can be no primacy. Awareness is known by awareness alone.

[@damonhage7451]

Awareness of what?

[@damonhage7451]

@@bretnetherton9273 Awareness of what?

[@damonhage7451]

@@bretnetherton9273 Does awareness exist? How can you have awareness before existence?

[@damonhage7451]

@@bretnetherton9273 You actually believe that junk? Yikes.

[@damonhage7451]

@@bretnetherton9273 Um... that is literally what consciousness is. You even agreed with that when you called consciousness awareness a few comments ago. How could consciousness be awareness without it being the faculty of perceiving.

[@mauriceneville860]

The remarks about art are beyond laughable. This man managed to make these absurd statements with a straight face, which is remarkable.

[@mauriceneville860]

'novels with heros and logical plots' are mandatory in 'Romantic Realism' LOL against Modern Art 'smears and dots etc' Music 'melody not atonalism' The Nazi and Stalinist echoes are inescapable - tiny minded ideologically driven philistines trying to tell artists what to do

[@mauriceneville860]

One of the tiny problems with ' objectivism ' is that its proponents cannot avoid making subjective judgements which they strive heroically ( and amusingly ) to dress up as objective ... viz your little rant above, which is expressed in the same Nazi lite prose deployed by Mr Peikoff. PS Mr Peikoff had the meaningful glint in his eye which leaves no doubt that a society he and his ilk dominated would gleefully burn books, paintinggs etc in a festival of objectivist joy

[@xblackcatx1312]

actually he makes sense. Art should be an ideal representation of reality to serve as an inspiration.

[@marvinbanjo]

Is this what happens when Tom Hanks and Billy Jean King have a kid ? I had a college room mate who tried to sound all intellectual, spouting her crap and smoked a pipe after reading Atlas Shrugged. Objectivism is a philosophy of logical holes that give the follower the right to be an asshole because he or she was an asshole all along . It's ironic that Rand would come to this country and dog our government because she, like most Americans didn't even understand how our government works. In the end, Rand wound up living and eventually dying on some form of public assistance as I understand it . So it seems even she went over to the dark side she so hotly criticized when faced with living in the streets herself . Oddly enough my friend from college wound up the same way . It's a terrible shame that her writing has done so much to divide this country. It seems like the modern man has become a selfish self centered idiot and taken her writings as gospel .

[@TyyylerDurden]

" Objectivism is a philosophy of logical holes that give the follower the right to be an asshole" Have you ever watched the video? I have doubts.

[@marvinbanjo]

@@TyyylerDurden objectivism is just reverse wokism, people think they are entitled to be assholes in either philosophy. Assholes are assholes no matter how you look at it .There is lots of room for a better way when the moral bench mark is this low and this empty headed .

[@chrisfowell267]

what about ontology I always though that was branch.

[@alexleibovici4834]

Ontology is Metaphysics; M. it is the term used by Aristotle.

[@judithbreastsler]

hardcore moderation

[@d.d.9472]

I suspect this is sophistry. It oversimplifies things. For instance, Peikoff asserts the dogma that "existence exists". Yet the first question a student encounters in a philosophy class, whether ancient (in the pre-Socratics) or modern (in Descartes) is whether existence is real.

[@AbtinForouzandeh]

From Galt's Speech in Atlas Shrugged, as found in the article on "Existence" in The Ayn Rand Lexicon website: "Existence exists-and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists. If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness. Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two-existence and consciousness-are axioms you cannot escape, these two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and in its sum, from the first ray of light you perceive at the start of your life to the widest erudition you might acquire at its end. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that it exists and that you know it. To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of nonexistence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was-no matter what his errors-the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification."

[@AbtinForouzandeh]

For more, see aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/existence.html

[@damonhage7451]

Lol “student encounters in a philosophy class”. Lol you realize that if existence didn’t exist, then this sentence is meaningless. There would be no students, no philosophy classes, and nothing could encounter anything else because there would be nothing to encounter.

[@GuysUTubeAccoountt]

The police being an acceptable roll of government as a protection against force from other people. So when that fails as it does often... Where does objectivism stand on gun laws?

[@billhaderenthusiasist]

45:38

[@kewlbeone5949]

His books are very good. Read dangerous parallels

[@boilerhousegarage]

The Ominous Parallels.

[@kewlbeone5949]

@@boilerhousegarage So on the money. It is scary. The dual state is THE problem among many. BTW written in 1983.

[@aminhasanli6026]

50:00

[@Claudio-gt4tn]

21:50 Against ethics by god, as well by society

[@IdeologieUK]

Isn’t this the guy from Ghostbusters?

[@mauriceneville860]

Objectivity is a belief system and therefore a contradiction in terms

[@ethanb2554]

That glass of water remained at the same level the whole video

[@NehemiahWendell-u1y]

Anderson Kenneth Harris Betty Clark Thomas

[@mahiganti]

He kind of sounds like Tom Hanks

[@TurnAGundam]

I would say he sounds more like Norm McDonald, myself.

[@1976turkish]

Mr Peikoff has Jerry Seinfeld's hairstyle

[@theondesems1154]

What a myopic philosophy. Ethics based solely on independence and rational self-interest has not been possible since we evolved sexual reproduction. An asexually reproducing flatworm may be able to justify such an ethic but we as humans, by virtue of our evolution as a sexually reproducing social species, must ground our ethical philosophy in both individual and collective interests. In sexual reproduction we are dependant on one of the opposite sex. In health and wellness we are dependant on the environment and the community. In technological and intellectual advancement we are dependant on the society and civilization. Thus a moral philosophy for each individual human will necessarily take this interdependence into account. Objectivism is insufficient in this regard.

[@damonhage7451]

We haven't had an ethics of self-interest since the Greeks and Aristotle, and there was never been ethics of self interest before that. Ethics is a code of values to guide human actions and choices. Human beings evolved volition much later than sexual reproduction, and without volition, there is no ethics.

[@eduardotoledano]

This content should be narrated by a better speaker so the message reaches more people. I hope someone can produce such new video as it would be much needed and appreciated. 👏👏👏

[@ProjectShamrock]

Maybe it's just due to this being an introduction but this is the most non-sensical arrogant philosophy I've ever been exposed to. Objectivists seem to say that things are the way they are because that's how they are and we can use our senses and reason to determine what they are. But just completely hand-waves over the fallibility of senses at 16:00. Someone actually asks a similar question at 1:45:05 and he takes 45 seconds to again hand-wave it away by saying, in essence, "you just need to be smart enough to not trust your senses", but if your senses are the only source of knowledge but you need to be smart enough to not trust them, doesn't that mean they're not the only source of knowledge? For example, I have a red button and I show it to a friend who is color blind, they say I have a gray button. Objectively I have a button, and according to objectivists I am right to say I have a red button but my friend is right to say I have a gray button. If 50 million French men saying the button is Red is invalid for determining the truth then my color-blind friend is exactly as correct as I am when I say the button is red. Thus, the button is both red AND gray according to objectivist thought, so red-button = red-Button and red-Button != red-button. But don't worry some super-smart objectivist is going to come along and tell everyone what to think because they're "objective" and "rational".

[@kenzeier2943]

Christian philosophy or scripturalism based on the Bible alone as the word of God provides the basis for addressing all areas of life including epistemology, politics and ethics.

[@ProjectShamrock]

@@kenzeier2943 what does this have to do with anything?

[@DanLetts97]

Well people that are colourblind have a medical condition that is well understood by Western medical science. Their eyes don’t function properly. We know this, that’s why the majority of people in any group would be able to pick out the red button when asked to do so. And furthermore, an eye doctor would be able to predict who would choose the gray button beforehand simply by examining their eyes

[@ProjectShamrock]

@@DanLetts97 I don't really know what point you're making but I don't think this solves the problem with objectivist thought that I outlined. "We know this, that’s why the majority of people in any group would be able to pick out the red button when asked to do so. " Going back to not being able to base anything on the consensus of 50 million Frenchmen, it doesn't matter if the majority of people can pick the red button, if, according to objectivists, we can't rely on consensus as an input to determine truth, then the consensus of the majority is irrelevant.

[@honovijones8441]

Sounds like objectivism tells people what to think.

[@damonhage7451]

*how* to think, if you want to be able to rely on your thinking

[@johnnynick6179]

Actually, this philosophy tells you that you NEED to think in order to survive. Nobody is telling you WHAT to think. Stop listening to what everyone else tells you and observe life. Read a variety of philosophies. Try to gain a better understanding of them. THEN you can decide.

[@k85]

Sounds like this is your reply when someone demonstrates to you what proper thinking is like, and you realise it for yourself as demonstrated, but you don't want to hear it nor know it. So you say they are "telling you what to think".

He keeps drinking water but the level does not change.

[@kenzeier2943]

Much